Purpleslog recently hosted a great discussion on the Global Guerrilla Concept. (For the uninitiated, GG is a theory of war popularized at the Global Guerrillas and John Robb blogs.) Purpleslog himself commented:
They certainly donâ€™t have same goals or 4GW. GG operations are not designed to send 4GW messages like â€œyou canâ€™t win this, you shouldnâ€™t even tryâ€.
The GG are in a way light infantry forces with additional special skills and tactics operating in a specific unique environment.
I usually shorthand to myself 3GW as WW1 Stormtroopers, WW2 Patton/Rommel armored/mechanized maneuver forces, Israel boldness and initiative in the 1967 War or the newer high tech version NCW/EBO.
Is there a reason a Light Infantry variant of 3GW could not appear?
… GG is a 3GW variant.
Curtis Gale Weeks of Phatic Communion also chimed in:
I still maintain, (and would link my prior considerations, if they werenâ€™t so spread out), that Robbâ€™s GG theory makes a very, very big mistake in assuming that no â€œcommon motivationâ€ would be behind the GG. My argument against his leap of faith, in this case, would be related to 1) the mistake people make when assuming that the different items being compared in metaphor are identical, when in fact they are not, or 2) mistaking patterns seen via horizontal thinking for real â€œobservableâ€ entities when in fact it is a mish-mash, a mix-and-match.
This â€œemergenceâ€ of GG â€” call it a phenomenon â€” is more of a description of a developing environment or milieu than any sort of coherent movement. The name â€œGlobal Guerrillasâ€ is therefore misleading, because it implies (to me at least) a commonality between all the different groups which emerge: they are â€œglobalâ€ in operationâ€“when in fact, they would most likely be local. If they are not local in a confined geographical sense, they would be local in following limited areas of â€œungoverned spaceâ€ or â€œungoverned pathways.â€ As soon as any combination of groups begin to form factions to have a global reach, they would cease having â€œno common motivation.â€